Kitz Forum
Computers & Hardware => Networking => Topic started by: covlad1987 on February 15, 2014, 06:01:37 PM
-
hi
tracerts and ping tests is it possible to find out if there is a problem with boardband speeds using these tests ?
-
Yes and no... It depends on how the backhaul or link providers prioritise different types of traffic
If there's a problem at a particular switch, this will sometimes show up on a tracert so you can see where te bottle neck is. Be wary though if a particular hop shows high latency yet he hops afterwards don't show any incremented time, as this jst means that the hop is prioritising normal http type traffic over ICMP and it doesn't mean there actually is a problem.
As to speeds and latency on BTs network, even if an exchange is congested and speeds are slow, its seldom that you will see increased latency as they give some priority to ICMP. I've been on a severely congested exchange where loads of us were experiencing extremely slow speeds of sub 100 kbps yet not one of us saw any increased latency through this.
-
Yes and no... It depends on how the backhaul or link providers prioritise different types of traffic
If there's a problem at a particular switch, this will sometimes show up on a tracert so you can see where te bottle neck is. Be wary though if a particular hop shows high latency yet he hops afterwards don't show any incremented time, as this jst means that the hop is prioritising normal http type traffic over ICMP and it doesn't mean there actually is a problem.
As to speeds and latency on BTs network, even if an exchange is congested and speeds are slow, its seldom that you will see increased latency as they give some priority to ICMP. I've been on a severely congested exchange where loads of us were experiencing extremely slow speeds of sub 100 kbps yet not one of us saw any increased latency through this.
looking at mine the tracert looks ok apart from hop 11 and hop 12 on the ping test im not losing any packets
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\joe>tracert www.google.co.uk
Tracing route to www.google.co.uk [173.194.41.152]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms BThomehub.home
2 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms 217.32.144.168
3 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.144.222
4 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 212.140.235.98
5 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 217.41.169.95
6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 217.41.169.109
7 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms acc2-xe-5-0-3.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.251.24
1]
8 28 ms 26 ms 26 ms core2-te0-2-3-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.25
1.147]
9 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms host213-121-193-148.ukcore.bt.net [213.121.193.1
48]
10 27 ms 27 ms 24 ms 195.99.126.105
11 43 ms 22 ms 25 ms 209.85.252.186
12 28 ms 35 ms 24 ms 72.14.238.55
13 20 ms 24 ms 24 ms lhr08s03-in-f24.1e100.net [173.194.41.152]
Trace complete.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\joe>ping www.google.co.uk -t
Pinging www.google.co.uk [173.194.41.159] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Ping statistics for 173.194.41.159:
Packets: Sent = 16, Received = 16, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 24ms
Control-C
-
What you are seeing at hop 11 and 12 is what I meant when i said
" Be wary though if a particular hop shows high latency yet he hops afterwards don't show any incremented time, as this jst means that the hop is prioritising normal http type traffic over ICMP and it doesn't mean there actually is a problem."
(oops at the typos - sorry blames mobile devices and not proof reading before hitting send) :blush:
It just means that yes those hops are busy, but its not causing any effect on actual traffic throughput. A lot of routers/switches are configured to give priority to actual traffic rather than responding to ICMP packets. The fact that it hasnt impacted on the hops further down the line shows all is ok.
-
What you are seeing at hop 11 and 12 is what I meant when i said
" Be wary though if a particular hop shows high latency yet he hops afterwards don't show any incremented time, as this jst means that the hop is prioritising normal http type traffic over ICMP and it doesn't mean there actually is a problem."
(oops at the typos - sorry blames mobile devices and not proof reading before hitting send) :blush:
It just means that yes those hops are busy, but its not causing any effect on actual traffic throughput. A lot of routers/switches are configured to give priority to actual traffic rather than responding to ICMP packets. The fact that it hasnt impacted on the hops further down the line shows all is ok.
thankyou for that just want to try and find out if there is a problem with my internet ie if the problem at home or the line to cabinet or exchange the first hop is pc to router
anyway thanks again for the info